Bob Neill: One of the concerns that many of us have is that beneath those headline figures there is a lack of hard evidence and real performance analysis of the RDAs. For example, in the north-west they are funding 21 schemes but there is no significant evidence of any hard outcomes in terms of business. In London, the lack of transparency in respect of the schemes operated by the London Development Agency is such that it has sometimes been referred to in the press as the slush fund for the Mayor's pet projects. Is there not a need for a consistent national template of target setting and monitoring? Otherwise, we might as well just open a suitcase full of money and throw it at them?

Ian McCartney: About £2.5 billion pounds of public money is spent every year on direct business support. Money is spent by central Government Departments, their agencies and local authorities. The DTI is leading the cross-Government programme to simplify the number of business support services from around 3,000 to no more than 100 by 2010. By reducing the number of schemes and the "back room costs" of providing business support, we will ensure that a greater proportion of the money spent helps business and will achieve more with the same spend.

Simon Hughes: Thousands of post offices have closed under this Labour Government. Moreover, the disappearance of Postwatch is on the cards and coincides with 2,500 closures over 18 months. Given all that, what customer guarantee can be given to people who use post office services in rural England, Scotland and Wales that the future watchdog will be more effective? How will be people be assured that the sort of nonsense that I saw the other day will not happen again? A post office in York had been closed, and a new one opened after a local community campaign—yet the business was clearly a viable commercial operation, which should never have been closed in the first place.

Philip Davies: Gunter Verheugen, the EU commissioner, has said that the cost of EU regulations on EU businesses amounts to €600 billion, but the European Commission has said that the benefits to EU businesses of the single market amount to less than €200 billion. With the regulations costing three times as much as the benefits and with 90 per cent. of British businesses not getting any real benefit from the single market but facing all the costs of the regulations, is it not increasingly clear that British businesses would be better off out of the European Union?

Anne McIntosh: I thank the right hon. Lady for that reply. Does she realise that that consultation is perhaps an example of how not to conduct a public consultation, as shown by the amount of correspondence that all hon. Members have received? In a recent Adjournment debate, the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills, the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Dhanda) promised that the position, especially with regard to adoption through the Catholic Children's Society, would be reopened in Scotland. Will the Minister confirm that, if any such review takes place, the same procedure will be followed in England?

Jack Straw: The business for the week commencing 7 May will be:
	Monday 7 May—The House will not be sitting because of the bank holiday.
	Tuesday 8 May—Opposition day [10th allotted day]. There will be a debate entitled "Action on Climate Change Begins at Home", followed by a debate entitled "Mental Health Services". Both debates arise on a motion in the name of the Liberal Democrats.
	Wednesday 9 May—Remaining stages of the UK Borders Bill. A statement on Northern Ireland is expected before that.
	Thursday 10 May—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Bill, followed by consideration of a resolution on the rating of empty properties.
	Friday 11 May—The House will not be sitting.
	The provisional business for the week commencing 14 May will be:
	Monday 14 May—Second Reading of the Concessionary Bus Travel Bill [ Lords].
	Tuesday 15 May—Opposition day [11th allotted day]. There will be a debate or debate on Opposition motions on subjects to be announced.
	Wednesday 16 May—Motion relating to the home information pack regulations, followed by considerations of Lords amendments to the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill.
	Thursday 17 May—The first day of remaining stages of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill.
	Friday 18 May—Private Members' Bills.
	The House will wish to know that the former Secretary-General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan, has been invited to address Members of both Houses of Parliament on Tuesday 8 May at 12 noon.
	Colleagues will also wish to know that the Taoiseach, Mr. Bertie Ahern, has been invited to address Members of both Houses of Parliament on Tuesday 15 May 2007 at 12 noon, to mark the restoration of devolution to Northern Ireland on 8 May 2007.
	Both occasions will take place in the Royal Gallery.
	I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall on Government motions will be:
	Thursday 10 May—A debate on the report from the Health Committee on independent sector treatment centres.
	Thursday 17 May—A debate on the report from the Work and Pensions Committee on the Government's employment strategy.
	Thursday 24 May—A debate on the report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights on human trafficking.

Theresa May: I thank the Leader of the House for giving us the future business.
	One year ago, following the release of foreign prisoners, my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East (James Duddridge) tabled a question to the Home Office. He received no reply until yesterday, when he gave the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Nationality notice of a point of order. The Leader of the House was present when the point of order was raised. The reply said that the issue was a matter for the permanent secretary. Surely my hon. Friend could have been told that a year ago, and what does that reply say about ministerial responsibility?
	Yesterday, Mr. Speaker said that Members were tabling a great many—possibly too many—questions, which the Leader of House has also said previously. May I tell him that if Ministers gave proper answers the first time questions were asked, there would be no need for supplementaries? Will he yet again remind his ministerial colleagues of their duty to this Parliament?
	On Tuesday, I and other colleagues celebrated the 10th anniversary of our election to the House, and, of course, we were all celebrating an important anniversary—that of the Act of Union. The Union makes us stronger and it must not be broken. The Leader of the House has previously said that he would welcome a debate on the Union, so when will that debate take place?
	Today's council elections have been marred yet again by concerns about postal voting fraud, with reports that 5 per cent. of postal votes have been discarded. That could leave thousands disfranchised. What is more, internet experts have described security for online voting pilots as "catastrophically weak". Can we have a debate on electoral fraud?
	The Constitutional Affairs Committee says that the Government's reforms to the legal aid system risk "irreversible damage" to access to justice. The Committee calls the reforms "untested and unpiloted". May we have a debate on legal aid?
	Yesterday, the Prime Minister again refused an independent inquiry into the 7 July terror attacks, but the promised Intelligence and Security Committee report has its limitations. That Committee has no investigative powers and did not even receive evidence from the West Yorkshire special branch. Can we have a debate on the need for an independent inquiry?
	The ministerial code says:
	"Ministers cannot speak on public affairs for themselves alone. Collective responsibility applies. Any minister who makes a speech which deals with matters which fall within another minister's responsibilities should consult that minister."
	In his recent Chatham House article, the Leader of the House argued that we need a "national story of identity" to achieve an integrated society. When did the Leader of the House consult the Home Secretary, or are these matters now the responsibility of the Leader of the House?
	The right hon. Gentleman has been very keen to talk about his old jobs—and we have not even got to his next one—but before he moves into No. 11, he should concentrate on the job that he has now. After the historic votes in this House to reform the other place, he said that he would reconvene cross-party talks. When will those talks begin?
	As the Prime Minister boasts about his legacy, one thing he has not discussed is the damaged relationship between Government and Parliament. The Prime Minister is rarely here, parliamentary scrutiny is contemptuously ignored and statements come second to media spin. Does the Leader of the House agree that the next Prime Minister must ensure that his Ministers show greater respect to Parliament and must restore the proper balance between Government and Parliament?

David Heath: I thank the Leader of the House for what he said about the Ufton Nervet rail crash inquests. As an aside, may I say that Benjamin Franklin was an exceptionally long-sighted individual, as befits the inventor of the bifocal lens? We opticians care about such things.
	I fear that we need a debate on the European constitution. The Leader of the House may be aware that the Foreign Secretary responded to a question in Foreign Office questions on Tuesday to say that she had received and filled in a questionnaire from the presidency of the European Union on the British Government's position on any future constitution or amending treaty. That means that the Chancellor of Germany, the new President of France, the Prime Ministers of Slovenia, Slovakia, Malta—and all the rest—will know what the British position is, but not the British public. Is not it time that the British public were let in on the secret as to the Government's position?
	We are used to almost weekly statements from the Secretary of State for Health on IT failures in the health service, but can we have a statement on the latest IT fiasco: the system for registrars of births, deaths and marriages, introduced at a cost of £6 million on 26 March and now withdrawn because it does not work? How many IT debacles must we have before the Government get their procurement right?
	We shall soon have the new Ministry of Justice, but the allocation of responsibility is still not clear. Can we have a debate in the House on the structures and functions of the new Department? Given that the Secretary of State will be accountable not only for the electoral system—I share the view that we need to debate some of the recent operational failures in the electoral system as well as electoral fraud—but for the prison system, does the Lord Privy Seal think that the Lord Chancellor should be an elected Member and answerable to the House?
	Lastly, in the context of the debate on the UK Borders Bill next week, will the Leader of the House find time to debate again the consequences for both national security and the security of our excise had the Conservatives won the vote on their amendment to the Finance Bill on Tuesday evening? That amendment would have taken away the power of arrest from 4,500 customs officers at our ports of entry, on the grounds, as the hon. Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) put it, that there are usually police officers available. Does not the Leader of the House feel that that would have had serious consequences, and should be revisited?

Jack Straw: The hon. Gentleman mentioned Benjamin Franklin and bifocal lenses. Bifocal lenses are valuable not only to opticians but, particularly, to those who—like myself—use them. What a great man he was. He also famously invented the lightning conductor, and all of us in politics should be extremely grateful for that.
	I have seen many statements by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and, indeed, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe setting out our position on the new European constitution. I will send them to the hon. Gentleman if he wishes.
	I understand that although the registration system has not operated well in some areas, it has proved perfectly satisfactory in a number of others. It is a matter of fact that—in the private as well as the public sector, sadly—IT systems sometimes take a little time to bed down, but once they do bed down they often produce major benefits.
	I am considering whether there should be an oral statement about the Minister of Justice. As for the position of the Lord Chancellor, the hon. Gentleman will know that an Act passed three years ago—I think—provides for the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs and the Lord Chancellor, as the same person, to sit in this House. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister—and the Home Secretary, in a statement at the end of March about the further split in the Home Office—made it clear that allowing any new appointee to the position to sit in the House of Commons was under consideration.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about the UK Borders Bill. My evangelical role as Leader of the House and former Home Secretary is obviously working in his case. As we know, the Liberal Democrats are famously soft on crime: they wish to let large numbers of criminals out of prison and give the vote to those who stay, and to do much else of that nature. But here is the hon. Gentleman criticising the Conservatives for being soft on crime, and he is right to do so. The police cannot be everywhere, and removing powers of arrest from the border guards strikes me as ridiculous.
	I note that "David Heath MP's Crime Survey 2007", a copy of which I have before me for the purpose of greater accuracy, contains questions on prisons and sentencing. The question "Do you think that prisoners should have a right to vote" is completely absent, but the questionnaire does say
	"The Lib Dems believe that sentences should mean what they say—life should mean life. Do you back this idea?"
	It gives people the opportunity to say no, but I think the sense of the question is fairly clear.
	Then—deliciously for those who have had to suffer the slings and arrows of criticism from the Liberal Democrats for 10 years about the introduction of CCTV, which they say is leading to a surveillance state, and other such nonsense—it asks:
	"Which of the following crime prevention tools would you like to see improved locally?"
	It offers "Better street lighting ", "More Community Wardens" and "CCTV coverage", but gives respondents no opportunity to say that they would like the numbers to be reduced.
	This is my last comment on the issue. Yesterday my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister brilliantly drew to the attention of a wider audience the Liberal Democrats' commentary on our first 10 years in office, in which they commended our brilliant record. I have a copy of the printed text, which I think should be placed on the Table so that all can read it. It includes some lovely lines, which I know will be noted by voters. It refers to the "fruits" of investment by Labour in Britain's previously "dilapidated public services", and to
	"In the NHS more staff, reduced waiting lists, better care in some areas such as cancer. In Education a schools building programme, better paid teachers, more books, and better equipment."
	In other words, vote Labour!

Tony McNulty: I beg to move, That this House do now adjourn.
	The Government have elected to debate the policing of London this afternoon, in what I hope will be a constructive attempt to understand where we stand in terms of that important subject. Members will know that until 2000, my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), who has just left the Chamber, was the police authority for London. On the first and only occasion that I criticised a Minister, I demanded that he abolish himself—at least so far as his role as the police authority for London was concerned. Happily, that has happened. He has not disappeared, which I am equally happy about—he is doing an excellent job as the Leader of the House—but it is right and proper that there is now in place other structures for scrutinising policing in London, instead of, as there had long been, a single individual who was a member of the Government.
	As part of the process of the Home Secretary's being the police authority for London, we used to have annual debates on policing in London. Since the inception of the Metropolitan Police Authority, the Greater London authority and the various other elements of that family, there have been no such debates. I thought it right and proper, and the Government agreed, that this House have at least the intermittent opportunity to discuss policing in London, and I am very pleased that we are doing so today.
	I am sure that all Members will join me in congratulating at the outset the staff and officers of those agencies on whom the policing of London depends, and with whom Londoners come into daily contact—the Metropolitan Police Service, the City of London police and the British Transport police—on all that they do in defending the rights and public safety of people in London. It is their professionalism, dedication, watchfulness and response that secure for us the ordered society in the capital on which our individual and collective freedoms, prosperity and well-being depend. Beyond them, I pay tribute particularly to the leadership of Sir Ian Blair and James Hart—commissioners respectively of Police of the Metropolis and of the City of London—and to Ian Johnston, chief constable of the British Transport police. I also pay tribute to Len Duvall of the Metropolitan Police Authority, to Sir Alistair Graham of the British Transport police authority, and to the City corporation for its scrutiny and oversight.
	As I said, we used regularly to have such debates. It is right and proper not necessarily to reinstate an annual debate—perhaps we can debate that issue, as well—but every now and then to provide scope for London Members in particular to have an extensive and wide-ranging debate, as I hope today's will be, on policing in London.

Tony McNulty: I accept the point that there needs to be some sort of streamlining. The police and all other bodies must become much better aligned. However, I am not sure whether that will be done thorough the development of crime and disorder reduction partnerships, the local strategic partnerships when they are successful—they are not always successful—or through an amalgam of the two joined by local area agreements and extra funding from Government if people achieve targets. None the less, I agree with the starting premise that there needs to be greater accountability, but across function and not simply of the police at BCU or borough level. Councils increasingly have a huge role in all these matters and not least in the environmental and other issues raised by safer neighbourhood teams that are more properly the responsibility of the council rather than the police. As I have made clear, I am struggling to find the answer, but just know that there must be a greater degree of accountability and community response.
	I am very grateful for the interventions thus far and hope that they presage a lively but thoughtful debate. I emphasise that we are not meeting today under the cloud of some great crisis. We can reflect on a good deal of success and, importantly, on a good deal of resilience and flexibility from the Metropolitan police and other police forces in London in responding to the needs of London communities as those needs grow, change and develop. The issues of policing London—now and in the future—are complex and policing can be done well or it can be done indifferently. I hope that the House will take this opportunity for what it is—a space to discuss and debate the issues of the day and the challenges of tomorrow in a constructive way.
	I repeat what I said when I started. We owe a great deal to the men and women of the three forces that I have mentioned—officers and staff. I commend the commissioner, Sir Ian Blair, on all that he has done in terms of leadership and vision for the Metropolitan police and the men and women of the police forces throughout London. We rely on their skill, resourcefulness, integrity, willingness to serve and bravery on a daily basis. The House collectively—not just London MPs—and the country should be enormously grateful for the policing that they provide to London in such a selfless way, because that matters to the entire country. I commend to the House the Metropolitan police, the British Transport police and the City of London police for all that they do.

Bob Neill: Perhaps we can lay to rest this canard that is trotted out by the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush and the Mayor of London—it seems to be believed by only the two of them. I have proposed most of the alternative budgets of the assembly's Conservative group. Conservative alternative budgets and some of those put forward by the Liberal Democrats would have made more resources available for policing. For example, we suggested that if the Mayor cancelled the western extension of the congestion charge and the Uxbridge tram, several hundred more police officers could be made available to police London's transport network, yet Labour assembly members rejected that proposal last year.

Nick Herbert: The hon. Gentleman is right. The fall in many crimes, as the Minister conceded, was expected because of technology, but the increase in other crimes, such as mugging, is particularly serious and worrying for the public. The fact is that the Government knew that that was going to happen, because a strategy document produced by the Prime Minister's strategy unit in December 2002 noted that London had a particular problem with mugging and street crime. It noted that mugging occurred principally in 10 London boroughs—the figure is 60 per cent.—and that an increase in violent crime was likely. We should have seen that coming to a greater extent than we have done, but everyone in the House would concede that the solution to the problems does not lie just with the police. I agree with much of what the Met commissioner said in his interview in  The Guardian this morning, and that the solutions are wider than a simple question of enforcement. Enforcement is important, as, of course, are sufficiently robust penalties, which the Government have now accepted in relation to knife crime. Police officers on the streets are important, but what is going on has wider societal implications, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) has constantly tried to impress upon us. The solutions lie in what the Prime Minister used to want to discuss—the causes of crime—so the point made by the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) is well made. I suspect that we will be preoccupied with the issue a great deal in the next few months.
	I have been talking largely about the importance of getting police officers on to the streets, and I welcome the fact that, in London, the development of neighbourhood policing teams funded by Londoners, with one sergeant, two police constables and three police community support officers in 630 wards has been rolled out ahead of schedule. In 87 wards, the number of PCSOs will increase further, which is important if we are to develop the kind of policing that the public want and that operates successfully in Chicago, for instance, as I have seen for myself in the Chicago alternative policing strategy, on which much of this is modelled. There is still a problem with the visibility of police officers, and the survey to which the Met and Metropolitan Police Authority drew attention shows that, astonishingly, it is still the case that less than half of London's population see a uniformed presence on the streets every week.
	The development of neighbourhood policing must address that problem. One way in which we can ensure the effectiveness of neighbourhood policing teams is to take a resolute—and, I propose, steely-eyed—look at the effectiveness of PCSOs and what they do. PCSOs are an important development and component of neighbourhood policing teams. I understand the reason why PCSOs should not have certain powers—it is to avoid their abstraction into police stations and to maintain a constant presence on the streets—but it is important that people see PCSOs engaging with them. There are specific problems to which commanders are alive and that need to be addressed. For instance, is it really necessary for PCSOs always to patrol in pairs? The Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Sir Ian Blair, proposed at one point that there should be proximity policing so that police officers and PCSOs could patrol on either side of the street. They would still be in safe reach of each other, but not only would that effectively double the police presence on the streets it would encourage them to engage with the community much more. Given that the Government have legislated to allow greater powers to be given to PCSOs, we will have an ongoing debate about the extent to which PCSOs should be given greater powers to make them more useful while avoiding their being taken back into police stations.
	That leads me to reform. In the past, we tended to have a debate about the need to increase the visible police presence on the streets, thinking that that purely involved an increase in resources and the hiring of more police officers. All political parties fell into the trap of believing that that was the only way of increasing the presence of police officers on the streets. However, a considerable diversion of police officer time as a result of the bureaucracy and the way in which they have to record and process crime confronts the police.

John Horam: It was nothing to do with the Liberal Democrats, then; I am glad to hear that from the Minister. For once, I agree with him. The safer neighbourhood concept is clearly the right approach to take, and it is working. In that context, may I make my usual complaint in such debates, which is that Bromley does not get a reasonable share of London's police? The fact is that we are far worse off than Lewisham or Croydon, and have fewer police than either, despite the fact that ours is the largest borough in the whole of London. My constituency takes up half of that borough, so I suffer particularly badly, as does my hon. Friend, from the paucity of police on patrol, when it comes to dealing with difficult areas. An example is Biggin Hill, which is right on the edge of the London borough of Bromley, and actually a lot of police happen to reside there. It takes about 20 minutes to get there from anywhere else, and that is a recipe for local crime, because people know that it takes time to get there from other parts of Bromley, and that there are not enough police in Bromley anyway.
	Leaving that aside, I accept that there are more resources for the police, and more police in London, and that the safer neighbourhood concept is right. None the less, it is clear from the debate, despite varying interpretations of the figures, that the results have been pretty patchy. The figures that the Metropolitan Police Authority supplied to all of us—we are therefore all arguing from roughly the same brief—show that the total number of notifiable offences is about the same as it was nine years ago, which is more or less when the Government came to power. There has been a decrease in burglary and in motor vehicle crime, but an increase in robbery, gun-enabled crime, murder, and violence against the person. I accept that there was an increase in the first four or five years of that period, and that there is now a decrease; I understand the Government's point about that. However, the truth is that given the way in which we currently manage things—that is the important constraint—that decrease is unlikely to carry on unless the additional resources provided over the past few years continue to be put into London policing. The truth is that that is unlikely because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs pointed out, there are severe constraints on Government spending. It is highly unlikely that the Government can maintain the increase in spending and investment in policing in London of the past few years over the next few years, and that is the difficulty with saying that the trend will continue.
	The number of crimes and the amount of antisocial behaviour that we are experiencing at the moment are far worse than has been the case historically. In 1931, to take a pre-second world war year, there were three crimes for every police officer, but there are now 44 crimes for ever police officer, to put the matter in historical context. Sir Ian Blair said that we could easily leave our doors open—perhaps one could do so in 1931, but one certainly cannot do so today—which was a curiously inept comment. The fact is that, historically, the situation on crime and antisocial behaviour is extremely bad. If we compare the UK with other countries, it is very bad indeed. A recent UN survey showed, once again, that Britain was at the top of a list of about 20 countries whose crime rates were analysed. We were the worst country of the 20 developed nations that it looked at. My hon. Friend made a point about New York. When the authorities concentrated on crime, there was a massive fall in the amount of robbery and crime as a whole in New York. In the early 1990s, New York was way ahead of London, but it is now significantly behind London. One would expect the application of those resources to produce results, but it has not produced as much as we expected, even though it has produced some results in London, which is regrettable.
	Anecdotal evidence from my constituency shows that there is growing criticism of the way in which the safer neighbourhood scheme operates. The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Susan Kramer) made a point about the shift system, the operation of which is not entirely sensible. One of my residents was told that if he did not like the shift system that was in operation in his area, as he lived close to the border of another scheme, which might have a different shift pattern, he could ring it up to make an application if he could not get his local team to respond. We therefore need much greater flexibility. I accept that there is a learning curve but, none the less, we are not getting police at the right time of day to deal with the drugs, crime and antisocial behaviour problems that are evident.
	Another problem stems from the fact that it is difficult to man the local shops that were opened to operate the scheme. For all the hullabaloo, they are typically open for only two or three hours a day, so people believe they are completely useless and ask what the point of them is. We spent taxpayers' money on opening all those things in different wards, but they do not contribute to the solution of the local crime problem. There are therefore ongoing difficulties, which I hope that the Mayor will take into account when he reviews the system. There is clearly a difference between the resources that are put in and the outcomes, which is unsatisfactory.
	The causes are interesting, and the Prime Minister himself has commented on them. Looking back over his 10 years in office, he said that his attempts to deal with the causes of crime were "misguided"—that was his word. He thought that the investment in various societal programmes such as the new deal, Sure Start, the improvement in schools, teaching and so on, would lead to a reduction in crime and antisocial behaviour. The investment has undoubtedly gone in, but we have not seen that level of reduction in antisocial behaviour. He was admitting that there had been investment, but that the way in which it had been managed was not satisfactory. That is the heart of the problem. We all agree that there has been significant investment, but it has not been managed, and the methods used to handle it have not been sufficiently good.
	I point in that respect to a comment by the chairman of Kent police federation that I saw in  The Times the other day. He said:
	"Policing has become too focused on targets set by politicians that produce figures used by the same politicians to pat themselves on the back and that produce figures only they believe...The performance culture is choking the common sense out of policing."
	That is part of the problem. As my hon. Friend pointed out, targeting can be contradictory and over-complicated. Indeed, the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Slaughter) agreed, citing comments from one of his local people. The amount of paperwork and administration associated with targeting is often overwhelming. Obviously, some of it is necessary from an accountability point of view, but a lot of it is not. That centrally driven, ring-fenced approach has led to a great deal of waste and discouragement in relation to honest and common-sense policing.
	I agree with the hon. Gentleman that local solutions make more sense. If we can trust people locally more than we have done, that must make sense, even though occasionally there will be mistakes and perhaps things will be pushed from one borough to another. No solution is perfect, and local solutions will have their downsides, but we need more local responsibility. We also need a shake-up of the criminal justice system. This is not simply a question of policing—the system as a whole is causing these difficulties.
	As my hon. Friend said, we need not only investment but reform. As so often with this Government, investment has happened but reform has not, so we have an unsatisfactory solution from which we are all suffering.
	Let me make one final point about the difficulties that we face in this country. The other day, I read a fascinating article by a reporter in  The Sunday Times which compared homes for offending children in London and in Hamburg. It said that children in the Hamburg home typically spent an average of three years there, so the staff had a chance to turn round their behaviour. There was much less time to do that in the London home, because children spent an average of only one year there. Moreover, the approach in Hamburg was noticeably more relaxed. For example, the reporter was amazed to find that some of the children got a massage before lights-out in the evening.  [ Interruption . ] I do not want to hear any sniggers from the Labour Benches. The kids enjoyed that; it was part of the daily routine. When that was put to a member of staff at the London home, they said:
	"There are all sorts of...issues involved...We wouldn't chance it. In everything we do, we work according to strict protocols."
	The reporter is shown
	"two ring folders bulging with statutory regulations and policies."
	One of the managers said:
	"Many senior managers in this field are more interested in reports, statistics and numbers than the individual needs of the children we look after."
	That is the truth of the matter.
	The Hamburg home got startlingly better results by dealing with the children in a much more relaxed, normal and human way than did the rules-bound London home. That is precisely the sort of point that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition makes from time to time. We are missing the point by spending the same amounts of money on getting very poor results because we are not treating people like human beings. This is a fundamental issue. We need to look at policing as a whole, in terms not only of the resources going in but how they are managed and handled in the course of doing the job.

David Evennett: It is a pleasure to be able to participate in the debate. As I said in an earlier intervention on the Minister, it is good that we are having a debate on policing in London, and I only hope that we can have more regular debates on London, perhaps on an annual basis, to discuss all the issues affecting it—good and bad.
	So far, this has been a high calibre debate, and one of thing that has emerged from it is that it is also our job to highlight the good things. Indeed, the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) said that we should not always talk about the bad things, and that we should go on about the good things as well. We will have the opportunity to do that if we hold general debates about London issues, and I urge the Minister to put pressure on the Leader of the House to arrange for us to have regular debates on London every year, as we used to do. If those debates are of as high a quality as this one, we will be able to get across the message about the good things that are happening in London—in policing or whatever else—as well as all the other issues that must be discussed.
	I listened to the Minister with great interest and I agreed with many of his points. There has been an increase in resources and in police numbers, both of which are to be warmly welcomed. There has also been an increase in the number of police community support officers—they are doing a very good job—and recorded crime is down. But a problem in my area—and in other areas of London where friends and relatives live—is that, regrettably, people do not believe the figures. The general public think that the figures are manipulated, with the result that, even where it is obvious that things have improved, they do not believe it because they do not feel it. Their quality of life has not been enhanced because they do not feel it, and because they hear stories about crime. I shall talk in a moment about the press, which the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey also mentioned.
	People matter, and we must not forget that we are talking about people today, not figures. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) on his excellent speech, in which he put forward many arguments and some statistics—not too many—and highlighted the value-for-money issue, which my constituents are very concerned about.
	There have been falls in some serious crime, and we applaud that. We applaud the Government, the police, who have done such tremendous work, the councils and the local community groups. All have played a part in the reduction of serious crime. However, we have not heard so much today about the other side of the argument. Certain problems have got worse, including antisocial behaviour, binge drinking, drug crime, problems on public transport, vandalism, graffiti, and the fear of crime. Those are the real issues that my constituents and others across London are concerned about. Serious crime levels may have reduced, but the lower-grade crime that impinges on people's quality of life has not gone down. In many ways, it has increased the pressures on constituents and families, to the detriment of their quality of life.

David Evennett: My hon. Friend makes a good point, and I am sure that she will elaborate on it if she catches your eye later, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	I have to be honest: I was rather sceptical about police community support officers when they were first introduced. Indeed, I took the matter up with my borough commander. However, I have to say that I have been converted and convinced. The PCSOs are doing a brilliant job as part of the teams, and the work that they are putting in is very good. My hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs mentioned their importance, and suggested how they could be developed further, which is something that we should be looking at. I am just a little concerned that London might not be getting the numbers of PCSOs that we originally hoped for. I understand that the planned increase in numbers has been cut—I know that the Minister will tell me that it is still increase, as he always does in his good-humoured way. PCSOs are the eyes and ears of the police—they provide a reassuring presence and report back—and they do a marvellous job. If the increase in numbers is not as we hoped, however, that will be a disadvantage.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam) highlighted superbly how outer London boroughs are often disadvantaged compared with some inner-London boroughs. Resource is always an issue.
	My borough of Bexley has seen great improvements. Our new borough commander is doing a tremendous job and working with the new council—I do not want to get party political, but it is a new Conservative council—elected in May 2006. To be fair, it is building on the work of the previous, Labour, council. The police, council and community groups are working extremely well together on the community safety programme, which is having a positive effective on Bexley. I commend all who are involved in it.
	Our local free sheets, the  News Shopper and the Kent Messenger Group's  Bexley Extra, have been fair in highlighting the improved crime figures, although that reduction is, of course, in recorded crime. None the less, they are presenting a balanced picture, and the press is too often criticised for only covering bad things, and putting tragedies on the front page. Last week, however, one of the front pages said that Bexley is a great place to live. Crime is lower, and other good things were also highlighted—perhaps its two Members of Parliaments, I do not know—to show why it was a good place to live.
	I also pay tribute to the roll-out of the safer neighbourhood teams, which has been completed in all 21 wards in Bexley. All have at least six dedicated officers, and two of mine have more than that. Christchurch ward, in Bexleyheath town centre, has 10 officers, because particular issues there require extra support. Obviously, I pay tribute to the team in Barnehurst ward, where I live, as they have made a tremendous difference by being out and about.
	There was a time when people said that they never saw the police. Now they see the police on a regular basis, and on foot. I have raised the issue with the borough commander, and of course police must have the mobility provided by cars when they have a large ward to cover. But nothing reassures the public more than to see, as the hon. Member for Brent, South (Ms Butler) said, bobbies on the beat. The term is old-fashioned, but seeing police walking around still provides a sense of security, which is positive. Of course, we need technology and improved mobility to deal with incidents, but seeing police walking around is reassuring. If we are to overcome the fear of crime, which, apart from localised antisocial behaviour and other matters that I have raised previously, is the biggest issue, the police must be seen walking on the streets.
	Partnerships are also relevant. Money is not the only issue, although it is important, and we are concerned that the Home Office budget will not increase as it has done previously, and that that may have consequences for policing in London. That is a debate for a different day.
	The other issue that I want to highlight is the fear of groups of young people on public transport, perhaps at the end of school time, when pensioners are also around. Sir Ian Blair and the Mayor came down to launch the scheme for police community support officers to travel on buses. There is a great fear of crime on public transport. I have visited a number of secondary schools in my constituency to talk to sixth forms, and have been surprised to learn that a good many sixth-formers are also frightened of crime on public transport. I have the privilege of being a governor at Townley grammar school for girls, and those girls are very worried about going home on mainline trains.

David Evennett: That is true. Teenage lads and girls on their way home are particularly vulnerable, yet the media highlight only the few. It should be borne in mind that the majority of youngsters are good and well behaved; it is the minority who are causing the trouble—the fear, the antisocial behaviour, the drunkenness and the bingeing.
	Some girls want to go to pop concerts, and it is great that they do. Others may want to go and hear serious music or visit the theatre. However, they do not like to come home on the train after 11 pm because of their fear of crime. There is fear on buses too, among drivers as well as passengers. Those based at Bexleyheath bus garage have experienced intimidation and aggression. It may be crime at a lower level, but it is serious nevertheless. Do people want to be on a bus at that time of night? They should think of the bus driver. All those problems must be dealt with. We want more people to use public transport, but it must be safe or they will not use it.
	There is a local policing matter which, I know, concerns my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) as well. Many of my constituents travel through the Blackwall tunnel during the morning rush hour. Recently the contraflow was closed by TfL and the police, who were concerned about safety in the tunnel. Unfortunately, their action was not properly thought through. People who drive so badly that they could cause a serious incident in the Blackwall tunnel should be punished severely, rather than the contraflow being closed. The closure has had consequences for people getting to work, and for traffic throughput during the rush hour.
	Apart from anything else, such actions make the police unpopular. In general they have become very popular because they are giving the public what they want, but in my area there is continuing concern about transport—not just about the safety of the travelling public, but about such matters as TfL's closure of the Blackwall tunnel contraflow without any serious consideration or consultation with those involved. That is not good news if we want the public and the police to go on working together.
	Graffiti and vandalism have increased dramatically on Bexleyheath broadway, as has bad behaviour, which is why there are more members of the community safety team in that area. I pay tribute to those who are working so hard in Bexleyheath to overcome the problems of binge drinking, antisocial behaviour and vandalism, and also to Bexley borough council, which has made a big effort to get rid of graffiti more quickly.
	I know that a number of other Members want to speak, so I shall bring my few remarks to a conclusion. There has been progress, but there is much more to do. Conservative Members are concerned about how we make sure that quality of life issues are dealt with effectively. That difficult issue involves education, councils, communities and national Government—it involves all of us.
	It is important to get across the point that if people think that their quality of life is threatened by what might indeed be lower levels of crime, they will react and become more fearful, and the result will be that they lead less happy lives. We are involved in this for people—not statistics. Over the years, the Minister and I have bandied about statistics on many issues, and I have a lot of time for him, but some Government statistics are manipulated. We must think about people because people matter, and we must make sure that their quality of life is improved. That is what we want to do, and that is why this debate has been of such high quality. We do not want to be party political. We are trying to improve our city, London, and that means us working together. There have been great speeches so far, but we need more action on the quality of life issues.

Sadiq Khan: When the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Mr. Evennett) commented at the beginning of his speech on how important it was that this debate on policing in London was taking place on the Floor of the House, and how much he welcomed that, a mischievous thought ran through my head. I recently became the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Leader of the House, and it occurred to me that I might take credit for this debate taking place—that I might take the glory for that. However, I cannot do so for a number of reasons, not least because the Minister with responsibility for London was mainly responsible for the debate taking place on the Floor of the House, along with the Minister for Policing, Security and Community Safety. They were keen for us to have a proper debate on policing in London in this Chamber. It is the right place for it.
	Six hours is not long enough to do justice to the subject of policing in London. The police service in London is now just that—a service. It was not always thus; it used to be a police force. As a result, the responsibilities of the police have changed. The content of the conversation that we should have about the police service has changed, too. There are at least 8 million Londoners, and it is estimated that there are a further 500,000 non-citizens in the city. Therefore, there are huge pressures on our police service. Also, at least 40 per cent. of our Londoners are ethnic minority.
	As well as that diversity, socio-economic demographics are in play in London. There are inner-city parts of our great capital city, and there are the suburbs and outer boroughs. Members in all parts of the House have commented on the different needs of different parts of the city. There is also the City of London, and the west end and commercial parts of the city, all of which bring different problems and challenges to our police service.
	I want to begin by paying tribute to the Mayor of London, the Greater London authority and the Metropolitan Police Authority, who do a great job in investing in our police service and in holding it to account. Previously, the Metropolitan police and the commissioner were accountable only to the Home Secretary. We have changed that. The MPA holds the Metropolitan police to account in an open, transparent way, and that is welcomed. I also pay tribute to the commissioner, Sir Ian Blair, and police officers, who do a sterling job serving our communities throughout our city, and the safer neighbourhood teams, which are a recent innovation and an additional member of our family of police servants who do a great job.
	The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Susan Kramer) congratulated the Minister with responsibility for policing on his comments about special constables. In Wandsworth, we are blessed with having fantastic specials. One of our specials, Fred Ahmed, has now been a special for more than 25 years. Recently in the House of Commons there was an attestation ceremony at which more than 20 specials were sworn in, and recently in city hall the GLA member Murad Qureshi organised for a further 30 specials to be sworn in, who will help police in Wandsworth make our community safer. Local authorities across the city do an invaluable job working in partnership with police officers and borough commanders. Civilians also play a huge role in preventing crime.
	I want to begin by discussing police numbers. We cannot escape the fact that there has been a significant and much-needed expansion of police numbers in London. At the end of 2000-01, there were 25,430 police officers; as of this February, that figure had risen by 5,487 to 30,917, which equates to a 22 per cent. increase. Furthermore, we now have police community support officers. There were zero before 2000; now, there are almost 4,000. As my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) said, in comparing statistics the baseline from which we start is very important. Should we compare current figures with those from 1991, from 1997 or from 2000?
	Those in the Chamber who complained—most of them were Members of Her Majesty's official Opposition—that the number of police officers is not increasing fast enough, or that we are not getting enough CSOs on to our streets fast enough to make our communities safer, should ask where the money and the investment is coming from. They cannot criticise the Mayor for standing by a manifesto commitment to increase precepts and to use the money to pay for more CSOs and police officers, and then criticise him again for there not being more CSOs and police officers. The same point applies to general taxation. They cannot say that there are not enough police officers, and then say that they want to share the proceeds of growth by offering tax cuts, while investing in public services and police officers. Police officers and CSOs cost money, and that money comes via taxation—both local precepts and general taxation. When we hear expressed these mock concerns about there being not enough CSOs and police officers, we must carefully consider whether those expressing them are sincere or are simply playing party politics.

Bob Neill: I apologise to my hon. Friend; I am behind with my knowledge of constituency boundaries.
	The concerns relate to the many central targets that borough police commanders have to deal with. Far too much of my excellent borough police commander's time is taken up with chasing those targets, and the targets that are set centrally and largely by the Home Office are frequently not the priorities that are most germane to people living in the London borough of Bromley.
	For example, we all agree about the key serious crimes—no one argues about that—but there is a centrally imposed target about the theft of bicycles. Any theft is important, but that is not a big issue for us. However, we can think of crimes that, in Bromley, we would put higher up the league. Greater flexibility for my borough commander, in consultation with the local strategic partnership, to set his own suite of targets for the problems in Bromley would be a real advantage for us.
	That is one point: greater flexibility to reflect the diversity of London would be valuable. Another point relates to the question of resourcing. Police officers are allocated to the borough command units—I do not include the response units and the other central units—on the basis of a resource allocation formula, which is worked out by the Metropolitan Police Authority by means of a system that, I think it is fair to say, is marginally more transparent that the Schleswig-Holstein question, although I suspect that there is not much in it. That formula has been reviewed periodically and there have been some changes, but it seems to me and, in particular, to my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington, that there is a problem.
	Bromley is geographically the largest London borough. I am glad to say that it does not have one of the top levels of crime by any manner of means, and I would not pretend otherwise. Part of the formula reflects needs and demand, so that might mean that Bromley will get fewer police officers. But the formula does not adequately reflect the fact that a good half of the borough is green-belt land. In the southern part of the borough in particular, police officers—the safer neighbourhood teams and the response teams on the borough command unit—have a large amount of physical ground to cover. My hon. Friend made the point about its taking 20 minutes to get a response team from Bromley police station in the centre of Bromley down to Biggin Hill. Added to our limited total number of police officers, that means that, at times of stress, it is extremely difficult to cover the demand.
	On a Friday or Saturday night, the majority of police officers in Bromley will be engaged in dealing with what are largely public order issues in Bromley town centre. Those issues have been fuelled by the increase in the drinking culture, which—I am sorry to make a partisan point—recent legislation has not helped. The officers are under a lot of pressure and are doing their best—I am not knocking them—in difficult circumstances. However, that means that the more suburban and outlying parts of the borough are hard put to get a decent response. The resource allocation formula does not adequately reflect the needs of geographically large London boroughs. I would hope that something could be done to reflect those needs.
	The formula also does not adequately reflect the fact that Bromley—I suspect that it is not unique in this—in a net importer of crime. Something like 70 per cent. of the people arrested in the borough of Bromley do not reside there. That applies right across the range of crime. It applies to the professional burglar, who thinks that there might be quite good pickings, and, equally, to public order offences. Bromley town centre, in particular, and, to some degree, Beckenham attract people who travel in from further away in London. There is a night-time economy. Bromley is also a substantial commercial centre and there are shoplifting offences and other thefts associated with that. The current measures, which reflect Bromley's normal resident population and its own internal deprivation, and other indices, do not capture the demand that Bromley's police officers have to deal with. I hope that it would not be impossible for the formula to take those factors more accurately into account.
	I accept that there have been extra resources. All of us on this side of the House recognise that. As the leader of my party on the London assembly for most of the last seven years, I supported that. That is why I was glad to lay to rest the canard from the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Slaughter). We are happy to support extra resources for the police, but—this is not unreasonable and it is not being critical of the police—we want to ensure that we get the best possible value out of those resources. That is the key issue.
	People in Bromley probably contribute more in gross council tax than people in any other borough in London, but we have the lowest or second lowest ratio of police officers per head of population. I expect the ratio to be at the lower end, because it is not the busiest borough in crime terms, but the gap is marked. Many people, including those involved in crime and disorder reduction partnerships locally, believe that the difference in the levels of policing between ourselves and our neighbouring boroughs of Lewisham, Greenwich and Croydon is one of the things that causes the displacement of crime into our borough. People in Bromley feel that they are not necessarily getting a fair deal.
	Another point related to making the best use of resources is the question of working practices, which my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) rightly referred to. When Sir Ian Blair was appointed Metropolitan Police Commissioner, he made a great deal of the importance of the service review. He was right to do so and I made it clear at the time that my friends in the assembly and I would support him if he went through with the review. I appreciate that other priorities have arisen, such as counter-terrorism measures, but it is important that we do not lose sight of the service review.
	North America is probably our best comparator, albeit not the only one. Many forces in north America get much more bang for the policing buck, which comes back to such issues as single manning and proximity policing. When I visited New York recently, I met members of the New York police department. Single manning is well established there, despite a culture in which there is probably a greater threat of violence to police officers on the streets than might be the case here. It has also been rolled out in Chicago and elsewhere. It is interesting that police officers there are encouraged to spend much less time in the precinct house. Such buildings are usually much smaller than those in this country and do not have such things as canteens. Officers are encouraged to take their breaks in the local deli—or the local café, as we would put it—so that they are seen out and about in the community to a greater extent.
	We should be prepared to consider such an approach, although that would require hard discussions with the Home Office, the Treasury, the Police Federation and representative bodies of the senior ranks. If the Met is to lead the way, as I hope it will, hon. Members on both sides of the House and people at all levels of governance in London will need to be prepared to give it political support. I hope that the Minister will reassure us that the commissioner and any successor will have the support of the Government—I know that he will when we shortly come into government. I hope that the Mayor and others will also give such political back-up.
	I have pointed out some important large-scale issues. Bromley's real concerns were addressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington, so I will not repeat them. However, I want to make two further short points. My hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford talked about the Blackwall tunnel. The tunnel affects my constituents. As far as the police are concerned, the risk is reputational, but if there is a question about safety, it should be debated. I am sure that the Minister will pass this on to the Minister with responsibility for London. We were concerned to discover recently that the likelihood of the closure of the Blackwall tunnel, apparently on police advice, was discussed with the London borough of Greenwich and the Highways Agency on 18 January, yet not a word was said to any of the other London boroughs, the London assembly or any other partners until about a fortnight ago, or less, when the contraflow was closed with less than a week's notice. The lack of transparency is our real concern. If discussions were held on 18 January, it would have been mature if Transport for London had brought everyone into the loop and held an open discussion. Such an approach would have given the police's case greater weight.
	South-east London does not have a tube system, so the overground is hugely important to us. I recognise the value of the work of the British Transport police and I recently had useful discussions with Ian Johnston, its chief constable. We face the problem that the transport police are extremely thinly stretched. The London south division of the BTP runs from the river down to Bournemouth. About 420 police officers cover the whole of the network, so there are really not enough to go around. If an incident is reported at a station in Bickley or Bromley, it is likely that BTP officers will have to go by train from Victoria or Lewisham, which makes the response time virtually impossible. If BTP officers cannot respond, they have to try to farm out the call to the local Met police, who might be tied up anyway. There are thus real problems with passengers' feeling of security on the overground network.
	I am not one of those people who think that the issue would be solved by integrating the British Transport police and the Met—I am not that interested in structural change—but we should consider much closer operational integration; a lot of good work has been done that way. It ought to be possible to make it much easier for Metropolitan police officers to get on to British transport property to pursue those who are breaking the law, subject only to safety issues, such as rail currents. I hope that there can be more good will and flexibility between the forces, so that we can resolve any boundary issues.
	Another concern that we have about security on the railway network involves closed circuit television. The position in relation to CCTV on our overground trains varies significantly. Some of the London commuter networks have 100 per cent. CCTV coverage of their rolling stock, and that is obviously desirable. The train operators One, c2c, Central Trains and Chiltern Railways are all virtually at the 100 per cent. mark. I am troubled to find that South Eastern Trains, which covers my part of the world, has less than 50 per cent. of its carriages covered, and that is the lowest of the lot. That really is unacceptable. If we want to encourage people to use public transport, they have to feel safe and secure doing so. Southern Railway next door manages 100 per cent. coverage on its commuter units. There can be no justification for that massive discrepancy between broadly similar networks.
	Although there is CCTV on virtually all our railway stations, I discovered that it is not necessarily always monitored, and monitoring is the key thing that gives people a sense of security. We know from underground networks elsewhere that it is possible, if there is proper monitoring, to send out voice messages in the station. I have heard the message, "Stop smoking on the station." There should be a bit of investment in providing that kind of service from a central control room. Letting people in railway stations know that they were being watched would be a real reassurance, is not expensive and is technically feasible. That is a simple, practical suggestion.
	I know that it troubles the BTP that it does not have adequate input into the way in which franchise documents for rail companies are drawn up, and in ensuring that security issues are given adequate attention. It is important that when a company bids for a rail franchise, making sure that the system is safe, secure and will reassure people is top of the list. It is not too difficult to write that into the documents. It would be helpful—perhaps the Minister can take this back to his colleagues—if we acted on BTP's suggestion that one of its senior officers be seconded to the Department for Transport to work with the officials responsible for drawing up the rail franchises. That would help us to ensure the more holistic approach to which I referred; again, that is hardly costly, and it would be a bit of joined-up government.
	I have touched on just a few of the issues to do with policing in London; it is a huge topic and we could go on for a long time. I hope that I have demonstrated that a great deal of good work is done, but the last thing that anyone, regardless of their party, wishes us to do is rest on our laurels. I think that it is 72 per cent. of the Mayor's precept that is taken up by the Metropolitan police; I undersold the amount earlier. Of course, part of the costs of policing transport services is added on to the fares paid by my constituents. All that we want is to make sure that the most rigorous attention is paid to getting the best value for money out of that valuable public investment, and to make sure that the police are freed up from the need to deal with centrally imposed targets, so that they can produce something far more closely tailored to the needs of their communities. That, ultimately, is the point.
	We all accept that if policing is to work, it has to be done with the consent and agreement of the local communities. Communities can work closely in partnership with their police officers, and there are good examples of that among the safer neighbourhoods teams, but we should go further. I hope that the Home Office will consider taking on board the Commission on London Governance's recommendation that there be a statutory right for local councillors to be consulted about policing priorities in their area. They should be consulted in their ward, as opposed to simply through the scrutiny panel process. I do not think that that is unreasonable, and I am saddened that the Minister should shake his head. Labour members of the Commission on London Governance did not have any trouble with it.

Simon Hughes: I sense that the centre of British political interest may be somewhere else today. None the less, I welcome the opportunity to debate policing in London, which we used to have annually when the Home Secretary was the police authority. We have not had a formal opportunity to do so for seven years, although there have been debates on policing generally as well as on matters specific to London policing.
	This has been a worthwhile debate, and I am grateful to the Government for facilitating it. I sense that there is huge consensus, and we have heard some very good contributions from Members on both sides of the House. I do not have the time to respond to all the points that have been made, but we have all taken them on board. I hope that the Minister and the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the hon. Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Jim Fitzpatrick), who has ministerial responsibility for London, find that encouraging and that when the report of our debate reaches the MPA—obviously, its officials will read it, as will the Mayor and members of the assembly—it will see the broad themes that unite us much more than the issues that divide us. It is easy for these debates to become party political, but that has not been the case today, apart from the odd spat, which is a good thing.
	I am pleased, too, to have the opportunity to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Susan Kramer), who represents an outer London constituency, while I represent an inner London constituency. There are differences in perspective, which has been reflected in our debate but, again, there is much that we have in common, particularly—I shall come on to this in a second—the development of safer neighbourhoods teams, for which she was right to claim the original advocacy and which, in all boroughs and constituencies, have made a difference, and can make a bigger difference yet.
	We have heard lots of statistics in our debate, and we have benefited from being given a common statistical basis—that has not always been the case in the past—by the Metropolitan Police Authority, which we have mainly used. Something that no one has said explicitly on the record is the fact that all those statistics are set against the background of a considerable growth in the London population—it is growing both in absolute numbers and in diversity. If we are seeing in general a reduction of crime, it is in a city that is growing, which is an encouraging sign. Broadly, the statistical conclusions are as follows: the population of London is going up—it is the biggest city in Britain and in Europe, it is still growing, and it will grow more—and police numbers are up. Rather oddly—I have not heard an explanation for this—in the last full year for which we have figures and which ended effectively a year ago, the figures dropped a bit. They were about 30,000, but they have come down a little bit—perhaps the money was spent on community support officers—although they may have picked up again in the year for which we do not yet have the complete figures. Until last year, however, the numbers had been growing, and CSOs, whom we had never had before, are now generally welcomed. Crime is generally going down—sadly, serious and violent crime is still going up—and detection is going up, but it is still worse in London than elsewhere. That is understandable, because London is a much more difficult place to police. However, the challenge for all of us is to say that London still has far too much crime. Crime overall must come down considerably and detection rates must go up much more. For me, the judgment is not about how much money we put in, or even how many police officers we have, but the results. We could double the number of police officers, but the crucial thing is whether they do the job that we need them to do, in conjunction with all the other agencies. As many others have said, they are not the only agency with responsibility—that is now being understood much better than it used to be.
	There is still too much fear of crime. Indeed, there is more fear of crime than there is crime. People think that crime is worse than it is. I made a point earlier that I felt obliged to make on behalf of my colleagues when they were fighting the election in Southwark last year. We all have a duty not to talk crime up. With respect, a lot of the media in London talk it up quite enough already. We must ensure that we are accurate when we report the position locally, in our boroughs, across London or across the country as a whole. I am perfectly happy to trade statistics about the growth in violent crime throughout the country. The Government have overseen that, although it is not entirely their responsibility. I hope that we will all, as politicians, resist the temptation to misuse the statistics in a way that suggests that crime of any sort is worse than it is.
	Some people say that 90 per cent. of crimes are committed by 10 per cent. of people. Those serious, serial offenders are the people we need to target. At the back of any police station, one will often see a group of photographs and a list of names of the people whom the police know are likely to be the suspects in, say, a burglary or robbery, and I am afraid that that is often the case. Dealing with reoffending, which is far too prevalent, is as big an issue in London as anywhere else.
	Let me make a short technical point about crime statistics. When I shadowed the Home Secretary and my colleagues and I received the regular monthly, quarterly, six- monthly and yearly statistics, one of the frustrations was that there were two simultaneous sets of statistics—recorded crime and the British crime survey. However theoretically understandable that is, it does not help the general understanding of what is going on. Some time ago, the right hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke) asked me to nominate somebody on behalf of my party to be on a working party to deal with crime statistics. I nominated somebody and they attended a couple of meetings. The group came up with a report, but its work still has not reached a conclusion. I think that there is now another working party.
	We need more coherent and less confusing statistics. I understand all the different academic assessments. As the hon. Member for Putney (Justine Greening) says, crimes involving people under 16 are not reported. It is not helpful if the statistics are confusing. For years, I have made pleas locally in my borough when police officers come to police and community consultative meetings or other meetings to go through the statistics. They often give only those for the previous month compared with the month before, and only in a certain bit of the borough. I say, "Let's just have the spreadsheet that shows everything that tells me how Southwark is doing compared with Lewisham on one side and Lambeth on the other, and how it is doing compared with this time last year." That should not require anybody to have to do the work locally. It should be done by a central department that could pull down the figures and make them available so that any member of the public is able to see them as well. We need simple comparisons and simple statistics. I urge Home Office Ministers to ensure, not only for the Met, the City of London police and the British Transport police but for all police services, that we have clear and easily comparable statistics as soon as possible.
	In all the welter of statistics, there has been a common assessment of what is the most serious and worrying feature—the growth in violent crime. The tables that the Met gave us show that the murder figures have come down in the past three or four years but are still higher than they were when this set of figures began in 1998-99. Gun-enabled crime went up considerably, nearly doubling, and has gone down only in the past year. Robbery has gone up and down over the years, but it has doubled in the eight-year period and increased in the past two years. People are worried about that on the streets, where it is one of the greatest causes of fear. Burglary has decreased considerably, for all the reasons that we know, and that also applies to motor vehicle crimes. People are protecting their property better, and that is good and encouraging.
	However, although violence against the person has decreased in the past couple of years, it has increased hugely—by about 50 per cent.—over the eight-year period. Rape has also increased, although it has been decreasing in the past few years. Convictions for rape form a small percentage of the allegations; 5 per cent. is a pitiful figure for the country. I guess that the same trend applies in London.
	The fundamental problem is how we break out of the culture in which primarily young people, but also others, believe that using guns and knives is acceptable. We all agree that many of those crimes are related to drugs, alcohol or both. As my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park said, we must concentrate on alcohol-related crime. It happens not only on Thursday, Friday and Saturday nights but at all sorts of other times. Tackling drug-related crime, which happens because someone is either on drugs or committing the crime to feed a habit—or, in the case of dealers, trying to make money out of exploiting people—is central to reducing violence in London.
	A friend runs an eminent Christian charity in Peckham called XLP, which has been running for 10 years, and got the Queen's award for a voluntary sector organisation. When I asked him to describe his perception of the trend in youth crime in those 10 years, he said that, when he started, people had guns or knives—mainly knives—because it was cool. They then moved on to using them for crime, but now many youngsters pick them up out of fear. That is a serious concern. Young people are most frequently the victims of gun and knife crime. They are both the protagonists and the victims.
	We must look beyond the young people and start with the families. Northern Ireland is a more peaceful place because the women in particular said that violent behaviour was unacceptable. Mairead Corrigan, who became a Nobel peace prize winner, and others rose up. They told their fathers, brothers, boyfriends, fiancés, husbands and children that violence was unacceptable. In the end, families have to say, "This is unacceptable." Of course, it is more difficult if one has a big family or is a single parent, but the message must be conveyed. Peer group pressure, family leadership and school leadership are fundamentally important.
	It is also important, when possible, not to exclude kids from school. Exclusions affect some communities worse than others. There should be better educational opportunities, training and work. Some fantastic work, which has been applauded, takes place. My friend the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) and I are in an area that includes the Lambeth and Southwark sports action zone, which does excellent work in engaging young people, especially young men, in using their energies. If they participate in community games and sport, and estate-based sports, thereby finding pride, self-satisfaction and respect, they do not have to do other stuff for pride, self-satisfaction and respect. I went to the Downside Fisher boxing club annual dinner the other day. Youngsters who box are not into drugs and drink because the discipline required to do well in boxing means that they train and do not drink, do drugs, smoke or stay out all night. By and large, they have to live a disciplined lifestyle.
	At a lower level, people in all our constituencies regularly complain of antisocial behaviour. There are some huge gangs—of an extraordinarily large size—in Southwark. We all have a responsibility to challenge antisocial behaviour, although it is sometimes a bit risky and I do not commend it to vulnerable people. I agreed with the leader of the Conservative party when he said last week that we have a duty to remind people that manners and respect matter. Lack of manners and respect is partly a consequence of not having grandparents and an extended family around as children grow up. Some of the immigrant communities are much better at ensuring that their youngsters understand manners and respect because the extended family is around. Irish families used to be good at that and now that often applies to Caribbean and African families. However, everyone has a responsibility for ensuring that respect matters.
	Terrorism has been a huge blot on London's recent history. In commending the police as a whole in the three forces that we have talked about, I particularly commend those who deal with anti-terrorist matters. I have been able to have some close quarters experience with them over the years, and they do a fantastic job. Yes, of course mistakes are made—more often due to intelligence than the police—but they do a commendable job.
	The one thing that we absolutely have to do is prevent the sort of victimising of communities that results from the sort of press and PR exercises that make a big story out of raids in certain parts of the capital city, as we saw in east London, which then start tarnishing whole communities. I do not know where these stories come from. Peter Clarke, the deputy assistant commissioner—there are so many people with titles below the commissioner these days that I get confused—or the guy in charge of anti-terrorism matters in the Met criticised the leaking of such information last week, as it hinders the police. We really must stop trying to sell these raids and anti-terrorist activities in advance. If people are arrested, then charged and convicted, it is a story; but the investigation should not be the story in the same way. There is no benefit from making it look as if a whole community is involved.
	I shall say just two sentences about something that has barely been mentioned. It appeared in the "metline", one of the Met police magazines. This week's or month's edition regrets the fact that traffic policing has almost disappeared. We may all be victims of traffic policing at some time, so this is a sort of double-edged sword to help make the argument. If we want a capital city that works, people cannot be allowed to sit in box junctions without being clobbered; people have to behave, so traffic policing is important. One thing that has happened in that context is that we now see lots of police on push bikes, which I think is a great initiative. There were not really any in London two years ago, but now they are all over the place. It allows the police to be more flexible. New York city police did it years ago and saw the benefit of it.
	I have a few organisational points. The Minister was responsive to the need to get our structures better. The hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) made a very strong point about safer neighbourhoods teams, which are great, but as she and my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park said, they have to be at the times and places where they are needed. We have to move the police from a culture whereby they do three shifts of equal numbers every day to one that says, "Look, you don't need to do much community safety policing between 8 in the morning and 3 in the afternoon; you need it much more between 3 in the afternoon and 3 in the morning". That is what the communities tell us. The communities rather than the police must lead that. The combination of police, community support officers and neighbourhood wardens—including specials, which are very important—is crucial and each borough must be allowed to work out the balance of those extra people paid for by the local authority as it chooses. There will be different answers in different parts of London's 33 authorities.
	I put to the Minister my point about the need to get the old order changed to the new order of where we have consultation locally. The age of the police and community consultative group has probably gone now that we have safer neighbourhoods partnerships. I think that we could have something that allows residents, councillors, businesses, the voluntary sector and others to meet, so that there are not lots of little meetings that actually say the same thing, but more effective meetings.
	It is important to make absolutely clear—the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) made this point—that accountability applies not just to the police, but to the local authority in the same place, representatives of the court service and offender management teams, prisons, borstals and other young persons institutions if they are in the local authority area too. The public can then get the people in front of them on a regular basis and there cannot be any buck passing. The police cannot say, "It is nothing to do with us; it is the council" without the council being there. Every council now has not only a leader but a person responsible for community safety. I am really keen to commend this to Ministers as a way of securing proper accountability. There are lots of responsibilities. One point made by the Met police commissioner this morning is that social services have a role to play. That is a council responsibility, so the council leader—or somebody on the council executive—needs to take responsibility for it.

Justine Greening: I am delighted to have the opportunity to contribute to the debate on an issue that is often uppermost in the minds of my constituents and is one of my top priorities as an MP.
	There is a great deal of concern about crime in my part of Wandsworth, which is Putney, Roehampton and Southfields. I have been out on the beat with my local police, as, I am sure, other Members have. Last week, I met police at both the police station in Putney—which was open when I went there—and at a new base, which is welcomed by police, in the Roehampton area on the Alton estate. There were some problems with its opening, but it is finally now open, and I hope that there will be a much quicker response to crime on that estate as a result of officers being on site.
	I want to discuss briefly the statistics before making my main points. It is not playing politics to point out the limitations of the statistics. It is incumbent on all of us to recognise and take steps to address that if we are to have good information on policing and crime on which informed decisions can be taken, both in this place and by local borough commanders at the grass roots.
	The briefing sent out by the commissioner was a classic case: what appeared to be a clear-cut story of crime falling across London was highly challengeable in a number of areas, and could be interpreted to give exactly the opposite impression when combined with other figures. The front page stated, "Crime continues to fall", and then underneath in brackets—probably in font size 4—were the total notifiable offences. Three years of figures were provided. In 2004-05, just over 1 million offences were notified. In 2005-06, 984,000 offences were notified. Last year, 921,000 offences were notified.
	Let us look, however, at the British crime survey figures used in the latest Home Office statistical bulletin, "Crime in England and Wales 2005-06". To remind Members of its purpose, page 1 states:
	"This bulletin brings together statistics from the British crime survey and crimes recorded by the police to provide a comprehensive account of the latest patterns and trends in the main high volume crimes."
	Therefore, it does precisely what we need in bringing together recording and the British crime survey. Page 57 of the document clearly shows, if we compare it with the previous year's document, that the overall recording of crime, which is reflected in the British crime survey, seems to have gone down from 32 to 30 per cent., which is almost a 10 per cent. fall. If we applied that to the figures that I read out for 2004-05 and 2005-06—the years to which the 32 per cent. and 30 per cent. figures refer—we would expect to see a fall in crime, because we would expect to see the underlying level of crime less reported in last year's statistics than in those of the year before. Had the drop from 32 per cent. to 30 per cent. been reflected in the figures, we should have seen crime in London falling not from 1,015,000 offences in 2004-05 to 984,000 in 2005-06—which the commissioner says represents a success—but to 951,675. That suggests to me that during those two periods the amount of underlying crime in London has increased. We do not have the statistical bulletin for 2006-07, which would help us to understand what last year's figures mean. It will probably not be published until July 2007.
	I was told earlier that I was picking holes in the statistics. I recall that when crime as recorded by the police rose during the first few years of the Labour Government, the Government's main explanation was that people were reporting more crime. It seems that the same logic does not apply when crime is falling. I do not criticise the Metropolitan police, but I do wonder whether we have a clear picture of what is happening in the city when such a small amount of crime makes it into the figures recorded by the police. The bulletin, which refers to the whole country, suggests that just 30 per cent. of crime is recorded, but I think the position may be much worse, particularly in London. We know that in London crime is committed disproportionately more against young people, particularly secondary school children aged between 11 and 16. I myself know from a freedom of information request that I issued last year that the victims of a third of muggings in London during that year were secondary school children, and also that nearly 49 people suspected of carrying out muggings were themselves aged between 11 and 16.
	Younger children are far less likely to report crime, for all sorts of understandable reasons. They are often concerned about what will happen to them. They are scared of becoming involved in a legal process that they do not really understand, which could lead to their appearing in court and having to give evidence. For many teenagers that is an understandably scary prospect. Bulletins of this kind should really carry a "health warning". Perhaps we should agree that when we discuss crime statistics in future, we should make clear what the recorded statistics are and what is the level of recording, so that we can better understand whether or not we are seeing an holistic picture.
	I know that detection rates in London have risen, and that is welcome. Of course a sceptic might say that, because a little less crime is being recorded, the crime that is making it into the figures may have a more compelling evidence base, and that is why people are going to the police. However, we need to be clear about the overall level of crime in London that may be being addressed. We know that about 21 per cent. of muggings make it into recorded police figures. We also know that the police will detect those responsible for around 13 to 14 per cent. of the muggings that they record. When the two figures are put together, it suggests that across London perhaps 2 to 3 per cent. suspects are ever detected. The total crime figures reveal a similar pattern. If across London about 30 per cent. of crime is recorded and there is an overall detection rate of 21 per cent., that suggests that perhaps only 5 or 6 per cent. of the total crime that is being committed is ever addressed by the police—partly because they are not able to address all crime. I know how hard my local police work in tackling crime, so I do not think that such figures have anything to do with lack of effort by the police.
	I raise those points because we have discussed why there is a massive gap between what the public think and what the statistics show. I suggest that the argument I have just outlined goes a long way towards explaining why there is a huge chasm between what people think about crime and the evidence of the crime statistics. It might well be the case that the public do not want to hear discussion in this House about reassurance policing and whether we should try not to concern people unnecessarily about crime, but that what they want to hear is a sensible debate about the fact that far too much crime goes unaddressed, and also that crime is endemic in certain areas.
	In large tracts of the country and many of our constituencies there is not a substantial amount of crime, but I am concerned about the areas where there is a lot of crime, and I am also concerned that in some areas crime is endemic. If it is being tackled to the extent that I have outlined in terms of actual crime and detection rates, it is not at all surprising that people are so concerned.
	A clear trend has emerged over the past decade, which is revealed in the figures. Crime has moved out of the home and on to the street. That is understandable because the economics of burglary have fundamentally changed. It is a lot harder to get into people's houses. Home Office statistics on security measures show that there have been dramatic rises in the proportion of people with burglar alarms—that has risen by 50 per cent.—and with deadlocks. The proportion of people with window locks has risen from 68 per cent. in 1996 to 85 per cent. The proportion of people with light timers and sensors has risen from 39 per cent. in 1996 to 52 per cent. People are taking responsibility for making sure that their property is safe, which we all welcome. People are taking responsibility for making sure that their cars are safe. It is difficult to find a model of car that is currently in production that is manufactured without an immobiliser. Therefore, the supply of burglary opportunities is lower than in the past.
	There has also been decline on the demand side. The prices of brand-new electronic goods at outlets such as Currys and Dixons have fallen. People can now buy a brand-new television for well under £100. Therefore, there is no second-hand market in stolen goods in the same way as there was 10 or 20 years ago. What would a criminal prefer to do—take a plasma TV out of a house in my constituency and try to lug it down the street unnoticed, or spend the afternoon on Putney high street stealing people's mobile telephones, a considerable number of which they could store on their body before that was noticed?
	Crime opportunities in the home have reduced, and therefore crime has moved out on to the street. There has been an increase in youth-on-youth crime because on our streets it is young people who have the richest pickings on them. Unfortunately, because of this trend they are on the front line of crime, especially in our city.
	One of the key questions that we must ask is whether that was predictable. There was a long period of time when we were taking officers away from neighbourhood policing duties. Now, there is a trend to return them to such duties, which is welcome. It started too late, but I am very thankful that it did finally start.
	I want briefly to discuss the role of gangs in youth-on-youth crime.  [Interruption.] The Minister shakes his head, but I would welcome his visiting my constituents who live on the Alton estate, because they feel very strongly about this subject. There is no doubt that the safer neighbourhoods initiative is working throughout much of London. It is not a new concept; rather, it is the concept of beat policing re-branded. As we know, beat policing worked for many years. Only in recent times has it been rescinded; thankfully, it is now being brought back on board.
	Gangs are a massive problem. I have several in my constituency, one of which actually has a MySpace page. I ask the Minister to give me guidance. If I can prove a definitive link between members of that gang and criminal activity, will he take steps to get that page removed from the MySpace website? So far as I can see, the page projects that gang, which I am not prepared to name, as a cool network of friends, although I should point out that it has a "rest in peace" memorial to one of its members, who was knifed to death in Mitcham last year.
	The reality is that those gangs of teenagers dovetail neatly into the local drugs economy, which the theft of iPods, mobiles and other such low-level crime often feeds. We have asked why young people are joining gangs. It is clearly a highly complex issue, but there is no doubt that the rise in statutory overcrowding in housing means that far more children are not in their homes when they are not in school and are therefore hanging around on the streets, rather than playing on computers at home or meeting their friends at their homes, which is what used to happen. As a result, children growing up on some of our estates are far more likely to be in bigger groups of friends, which can become more gang-related as the lowest-common-denominator behaviour seems to prevail.
	This issue is a concern, and I share the view expressed today that we need to look more seriously at behaviour patterns in the summer months. Examination of the youth justice system shows that the population of young offender institutions rises in the winter months. That increase perhaps emanates from crimes that were committed in spring and summer months, but which take time to work through the system. So there is hard evidence to suggest that the more that we give young people to do during the summer months, particularly when they are out of school, the better.
	I want briefly to discuss how all those issues impact on my constituency. I noted with interest the comments of my colleague the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Khan). I fundamentally disagree with his analysis of the crime-related problems that we see across Wandsworth; however, I am probably best off confining my comments to my constituency. My constituents are concerned at the fact that our borough has some 80 fewer trained officers with arresting powers than we had a decade ago. Those numbers are being replenished—but with police community support officers. We welcome PCSOs of themselves. Everybody recognises that they have a valuable role to play in policing our streets and in improving links with our communities, particularly with schools. Given that a third of mugging victims are secondary school kids, and that half of those muggings are probably carried out by such children, we can see that the relationship between local police and schools is probably one of the most important in the whole community.
	PCSOs have a vital role to play, but we have become reliant on them as a resource, which I find questionable. I hear the statistics bandied about on how many officers there are across London, but we have not seen more arresting officers in Wandsworth. We have some 80 fewer officers who can arrest people for committing crimes than we had a decade ago. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is not in his place to respond if he disagrees with me. He said that the problem was the formula, but in that case, as an MP, I should challenge that formula. It is perverse that we should have fewer arresting officers and that the formula does not take better account of the demographics. Wandsworth has the youngest demographic of any London borough and London has the youngest demographic of any part of the country. Young people are far less likely to report crime, so my borough suffers disproportionately more from under-reporting, but that is not reflected in the formula. We should match police resources with where they are needed, but if we do that solely on recorded numbers without considering the reasons why crime is not reported, we are kidding ourselves if we think that the resources are going to the right places.
	Another example is the recent announcement of additional PCSOs for some wards. As we have heard, the standard model for a safer neighbourhood team is the 1-2-3 model of one sergeant, two constables and three PCSOs. However, for some wards, generally those with more than 14,000 residents, the model is expanded, with six PCSOs. We have had some of those extra PCSOs in three of my wards in Putney, Roehampton and Southfields. However, they do not include Roehampton, the only ward that has had a murder in it in the past six months. That ward also has Europe's largest council estate and is isolated on the edge of Richmond park, so it does not get police cars passing on their way to deal with other crimes in London.

Justine Greening: Wandsworth council is working closely with the police to make the case for more resources. The reduction in police officers in my area is not a gap that the council should have to plug because Wandsworth taxpayers are not getting good value for money after it has been handed over to the Mayor. It is not acceptable to take officers away from an area and expect the council to plug the gap. Apparently, it is okay for some areas to have fewer officers. I mentioned Roehampton, which has several crime issues. People from the gang I just mentioned have been seen on the local estate, which already has a gang, but it is worrying if it is now linking up with the bigger gang based in Wandsworth. As I said, the estate does not have passing police cars able to respond quickly, but the area has the bare minimum complement of safer neighbourhood officers compared to other wards. That is ludicrous.
	My local inspector is responsible for looking after policing in Putney, Roehampton and Southfields. He could resolve matters if he were able to reallocate his PCSOs and constables to Roehampton, but that is not possible. He can move his officers temporarily, but he cannot reallocate them permanently.
	That is ludicrous. We are always talking about intelligence-led policing, but no one seems to want to rely on the intelligence of local police inspectors. That is a huge problem, because my inspector can put resources into the Roehampton estates only as and when he can justify doing so. The result is that that ward does not have the police officers that it needs, who can take responsibility for dealing with what is happening there and develop clears links with the community. If that were to happen, it might be possible for them to tackle crime in the area over the long term.
	Many of my constituents do not feel safe, either in their homes or when they are out. I make no apologies that that is not what contributors to the debate are meant to say. I know that we are all supposed to say that everything in London is rosy, but many of my constituents have given up reporting serious crimes. That is not necessarily because they think that the police are not interested, but because they are scared about what will happen if they do report crimes.
	The safer neighbourhood model of beat policing can be very successful, but the problem is that, in those areas of London where they are most needed, the safer neighbourhood teams and panels do not work. The one in Roehampton has broken down because residents know that gang members go to the meetings. As a result, they feel unsafe and are simply not prepared to get involved. Some of my constituents who reside on the Alton estate are not prepared even to be seen talking to police officers. They do not want officers to knock on their doors because they are scared of reprisals.
	Those are genuine problems, and obviously I am not happy about them. It might be argued that local people should be able to go and talk to the police, and it would be nice if they felt that they could, but they do not feel that. It is clear that we need to find more sophisticated ways to develop safer neighbourhoods in those very difficult areas where people are scared to get involved—even though that is what they have to do if they are to help the police help them.
	Finally, we should not forget the impact that crime has on small businesses and economic regeneration. It is a blight that impacts shopkeepers as well as residents. The people who run shops in shopping parades such as the one in Danebury avenue in my constituency are very worried about the levels of crime that they face. Their problems are the same as those faced by residents, which means that shopkeepers are scared about what might happen to them if they make a stand.
	For example, one local shopkeeper caught a person shoplifting, and told a policeman who happened to be walking past. The officer held the suspect in his grip, and asked the shopkeeper what she wanted him to do. He was prepared to take a statement, but the shopkeeper told him to let the suspect go as she was scared about what might happen to her if she went ahead with a prosecution. She knew that the person involved was a member of the local gang, and that he would not be alone the next time he visited her shop. On the contrary: he would have many others with him, and she knew that, even if she called the police, they would not arrive in time to prevent her from being badly beaten up and her business trashed.
	I am not sorry to have been less than consensual this afternoon, because I know that many problems exist. It is not my duty to spend my time reassuring residents in my constituency—rather, I must represent the concerns that they put to me. That is what I have tried my best to do today, and I hope that I have succeeded in making the Minister aware of them.

Andrew Rosindell: I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for missing the opening speech in this important debate. I was in my constituency where I was pleased to greet, for the first time ever, the Mayor of London, who despite being Mayor for the past seven years has never before visited my constituency. He went to the bus garage in North street where he met staff and greeted 18 new police community support officers who will be working throughout Romford and the London borough of Havering.
	I was pleased to give the Mayor of London a little badge like the one I am wearing—the town crest of Romford—to remind him that Romford is part of Greater London. Although he has not visited Romford until now, it is important that he and the Greater London authority do not forget areas of outer London, particularly Romford, when resources are being allocated. Until now, statistics show that Romford has been forgotten; we have one of the lowest rates of police cover per head of population in London. As the Minister knows, Harrow, too, is rather low down the scale; the boroughs of Havering, Harrow, Richmond, including Barnes, and Bromley, as my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam) knows, are the four lowest in London. Police resources are unfairly spread throughout Greater London and their allocation does not take into account all the circumstances, so I urge the Minister and the Government to take action to ensure fairer allocation of resources so that places such as the London borough of Havering, and Romford in particular, are given the police cover we deserve and pay for.
	My constituents are constantly angry because they cannot get a policeman to come out when a crime is committed, and they rarely see policemen on the beat. Although CSOs and safer neighbourhood teams have helped, we have not nearly the amount of police cover we need.
	Police are needed for London-wide events; during President Bush's visit to London a few years ago, I stood in the Mall to cheer him as he passed and was amazed to see loads of policemen with "KD" on their lapel, which signifies the London borough of Havering. That was a classic example. When there is a state visit, a huge football match or an event of note in London, police from outer London are dragged into the centre and we lose cover in areas such as Romford where we pay for it and need it.
	Our PCSOs do an excellent job. I welcome their presence on the streets of London and I welcome safer neighbourhood teams. However, we should not look at the situation through rose-tinted glasses. My hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Justine Greening) highlighted many points about statistics and the failings in the system with which I entirely agree. New PCSOs will help; a visible presence on the streets can help to deter crime and give local residents reassurance that somebody is watching over them to ensure that crime is kept to the minimum. However, being a PCSO should be a stepping stone to becoming a fully fledged policeman. It is no good PCSOs finishing work at 6 o'clock if there is no one to do the job in the evening. We need 24-hour policing and PCSOs need a career path that allows them to become police constables.